Well, these are serious questions that we need to ask, and because they are so important, you can't expect everyone to immediately agree. It is better that we are debating the question, rather than simply following what one man has to say (regardless of the fact that I agree with what he has to say, it is still good to debate it).

You are missing the big point here: open vs. closed standards. OOXML is taking a back-seat to ODF more and more, so MS is trying to screw things up and push OOXML through ECMA, etc. (which is just a rubber-stamp agency), and all the despicable things they did with the ISO trying to get it passed as an ISO standard (which finally failed when their shenanigans were exposed).

If GNOME supports OOXML, this just muddies the waters even more. It's a blatant move by MS (using covertly-paid henchmen) to fracture the open-source community.

We already have multiple national governments adopting the ODF standard (which truly is an open standard); the last thing we need is the stooges at GNOME slowing this process.

How do you know that the GNOME isn't doing what the article summary suggested, and actually considering the format on equal terms with ODF?

If they're considering OOXML on equal terms with ODF, then that shows they're clearly biased towards MS. Providing support as a migration path is fine, but endorsing it is another thing altogether. I don't mind OpenOffice supporting.doc and.xls files, so I can exchange those with MS Office users when I need to, but it doesn't endorse those in any way. I would expect

I read that, knee-jerked, and thought "you really are biased against MS, aren't you?" I read on and saw you didn't actually do anything to correct that reaction. You really think that the simple act of comparing the MS standard to the ODF on equal terms shows a bias towards MS? If ODF were truly superior, a comparison on equal terms would come up with similar results to a biased one. I think you missed the point of the "equal" bit, which is funny because you emphasised it.

Now, arguments can be made that the standard is not defined well enough to be implemented (due to things like "do it like word95 did"), but that's the sort of thing that should be resolved by all interested parties before finalizing.

Now, arguments can be made that the standard is not defined well enough to be implemented (due to things like "do it like word95 did"), but that's the sort of thing that should be resolved by all interested parties before finalizing.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. It's not an openly-viewable standard when critical parts of it are closed and secret. I highly doubt this will get resolved; stuff like that is in there precisely because MS wants to maintain their vendor lock-in. How are they going to maintain lock-in if they openly document everything? Besides, these issues were raised many, many months ago when MS tried to get their "standard" accepted as one, and they still haven't done anything about them.

"is to constantly fight about it amongst ourselves."It's called competition. And evolution.

And yes, in the long term, it actually will do the trick.

The free software community, through dissent and conflict, becomes infinitely adaptable to any and all niches. Compare with monolithic entities like Microsoft with much stronger direction; when they decide to go down a number of dead ends they end up with products like Vista, with no fallbacks, unable to fill new niches like the low-end sub $200 pc's.

The problem is that what you characterize as "infighting" isn't really. Let me draw an analogy.

Suppose you have a sports team, let's say football (it doesn't matter which type). We have a game between team A and Team B. Team A is pretty decently organized, and works fairly well together. Team B has some problems, however: one player is constantly starting fights with other players on his team, and frequently recruits others on the team to his faction to help in his fights with the other factions. Consequently, the team does very poorly in the competition because they're always "infighting". But then it's discovered that that one fight-starting player is actually being paid, under the table, by Team A just to stir up trouble on his team!!! So is it really infighting? I'd call it "sabotage" instead.

This is exactly what's happening with open-source, specifically with GNOME and Miguel de Icaza. He's really an agent for Microsoft, in some way. It's not clear yet whether he's actually being paid off by them, or if he's just a willing stooge who loves them so much that he's lost his grip on reality. It doesn't matter either way, though, because the effect is the same: it factionalizes open-source and creates problems, helping MS.

Personally, I think open-source projects need to cut him off altogether. When you have gangrene in one of your limbs, you amputate it before it spreads. If GNOME isn't willing to throw him out, then GNU needs to drop support for GNOME, and all other open-source projects do too. They need to stop the cancer before it spreads.

Miguel may have been a founder of the GNOME project, but he is not even on the GNOME foundation board anymore. His opinion matters no more than that of anyone else who contributes code to GNOME. Though he has written some excellent software his baffling statements probably with respect to OOXML will not likely be taken seriously.

RMS is worried about compromising on principles of Free software by putting efforts into making software that reads or writes this technically and philosophically nasty format. Since when has AVOIDING interoperability furthered the spread of Free software? Linus has yielded to pragmatism many times in the past (using BitKeeper for example, and being cautious about GPL3) whereas RMS remains steadfastly rigid in his ideals at all levels. RMS' stance is admirable, but look at where the Linux kernel is...then look at how far the HURD has come in comparison. Perhaps some pragmatism isn't always a bad thing?

Now, as far as compromising "principle" with the pragmatic decision to work on making GNOME read the OOXML format, where exactly is this a more serious concern than with countless other interoperability projects? What about the work that went into making NTFS mountable in Linux? What about the Samba project? What about the ability of OpenOffice, KOffice, AbiWord, GNUMeric, etc. to at least partially support Microsoft's legacy binary file formats already? Where do we draw the "principled" line here? Microsoft's "core dump" binary formats, NTFS file system, CIFS and the Active Directory are not proper open standards yet great effort has been made thus far to reverse-engineer and deal with them so as to break down the Microsoft lock-in. How come, all of the sudden, RMS has to chime in about OOXML and now suddenly we should all ignore it on principle?

Perhaps the KDE people should become even more principled and drop all the hooks it has with Samba to browse and be browsed on Microsoft's "network neighbourhood". Perhaps Linux-based OSes should not only all drop GNOME as the default desktop, they should also drop the ability to mount NTFS volumes too. After all, if we're gonna snub OOXML because it's crap and it's closed, then we should be consistent and do the same across the board.

It seems to me that a mature approach would be to simply acknowledge the differences and you what you think the best tool for the job is. And just because the support might be there doesn't mean you will have to use it.

It's not that simple: this is an issue of standards. When you're dealing with standards, and creating and promoting a standard, you're inherently rejecting the idea of letting people decide what the "best tool for the job" is, because you're trying to make them use a specific tool, so that they can interoperate. What good would it do me to make up my own graphics format and editing tools, for instance, if I can't use the resulting images anywhere or send them to anyone? I can use them for myself, of course, but for things like that, it's a lot more useful if I can also exchange them with others, and because it's a popular standard, they have no problem using these files.

There's a big fight right now between ODF and OOXML. People (especially large organizations) are finally seeing the value of open office format standards, and XML-based ones which they can view or edit with tools other than the word processor or spreadsheet which created them. The whole world has been suffering with MS Office's closed, proprietary, binary-only formats for many years now, and they're ready for a change to something more like PDF or JPG, which can be viewed or edited with lots of different, competing tools. (It's also very useful to have an XML-based standard so that information can be easily extracted, such as for web searches. Google could easily spider and index XML-based documents on the web, whereas doing that for MS's proprietary formats isn't so simple.) But MS doesn't want people to switch to an open standard; they'll lose their proprietary lock-in, and consequently many MS Office customers. So they've intentionally confused the issue by making up their own XML-based "standard", OOXML, which isn't open, and basically serves as an XML wrapper for closed, binary data so that competing software still can't be 100% compatible.

Diversity and uniqueness of different open-source projects is a good thing as you say, as people can pick what works the best, but they're not shut out of anything because it's all open (For instance, I use KDE normally, but I can still use GNOME programs because it's all open-source; I'm not locked out of either by choosing one). But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about an open standard vs. a closed standard. If the world chooses the closed standard, then we're right back where we were with a decade or more of MS Office dominance, and no other tool being 100% compatible, so we're all forced to use MS Office just to be compatible with everyone else. No thanks.

As was extensively explained in various GNOME places recently, Miguel is not GNOME, and has borderline zero impact or influence on GNOME at present (hence the best 'looks-serious' tag the author could find for him was "co-founder"; Woz was the co-founder of Apple, does that mean he's running iPod codec policy?) . Quim Gil is rather more directly involved in GNOME right now, but he also works for Nokia. He also clearly does not set Nokia's corporate policy. Therefore what he's doing on that bug report is reporting a corporate policy that stinks. This is obviously an uncomfortable position for him, but has sod all to do with GNOME.

Quim Gil is rather more directly involved in GNOME right now, but he also works for Nokia. He also clearly does not set Nokia's corporate policy. Therefore what he's doing on that bug report is reporting a corporate policy that stinks. This is obviously an uncomfortable position for him, but has sod all to do with GNOME.

He's heavily involved with Gnome, and on a bug report within an open source project that is Gnome related he is regurgitating a corporate policy that is totally at odds with the free and op

Nokia obviously does not want to support Vorbis. That's not Quim's decision to make. He can't change reality on the bug report and say "sure, Nokia will support Vorbis tomorrow, everything will be fine and dandy", because it's clearly *not going to happen*. But Nokia's policy is not GNOME's, and what Nokia does really has no implications for what GNOME does.

I really don't understand what you expect Quim to do on this bug report, or why you think it implies anything in particular about *GNOME's* policies, rather than Nokia's.

Gnome does *not* support OOXML becoming a standard. The *only* thing they are doing with it is trying to make sure that *if* and when it becomes a standard that it's good enough and open enough for Free software like Gnome apps to able to implement it. But they are *not* helping to get it passed.

But I still stand by my comments. And here, just to cut to the chase, is one of Jeff Waugh's comments from the article linked above:

The GNOME Foundation is not in bed with Microsoft or Novell on this issue. Our statement is very clear about our attitude towards OOXML and our participation in ECMA TC45-M. We're there to ensure that we have sufficient documentation for FLOSS project to implement it. We're not endorsing, contributing to or developing the OOXML specification or its standardisation. (In fact, it has had a positive contribution to my work against OOXML locally...)
Whatever happens with ISO, it's important for FLOSS products to implement it such that users have the opportunity to embrace Software Freedom without cutting themselves off from their own documents, or collaboration with their friends and colleagues.
We don't have to like OOXML, Microsoft or the Microsoft/Novell deal to implement it, and have an open and pragmatic approach to delivering Software Freedom to as many users as we possibly can. We fiercely compete with Microsoft, and we're not about to give their monopoly a leg up by boycotting their stupid format. We want *MORE* FLOSS users, not fewer.
There is a complete valid disagreement about the *perception* of GNOME involvement in TC45-M and how Microsoft might use it (and we'll make it very clear to national bodies and BRM delegates what our position is and why we're involved in the ECMA group), but nothing deserving demonisation of GNOME or suggestions that it has "sold out" to any corporation. That is simply not the case, and it is unnecessarily divisive to suggest so.

>>The *only* thing they are doing with it is trying to make sure that *if* and when it becomes a standard that it's good enough and open enough for Free software like Gnome apps to able to implement it.>Of course Gnome backs ODF.In thoughts only AFAIK: which Gnome component is going to use ODF? Do they have someone working on the standardisation board to ensure that ODF is really good?

IMHO, it's much more important to have a great ODF and a great support for ODF than Microsoft Office XML: so every

Gnome is in a tough spot caused by its founder, Miguel de Icaza. Given Icaza's incredibly stupid and harmful MS pandering over OOXML and other MS technologies, anything short of Gnome's total renunciation of OOXML is viewed with suspicion. Jeff Waugh's comments and Gnome's position seem reasonable to me but then crazy Miguel pops up somewhere spouting nonsense about what a wonderful standard OOXML is. This coupled with Gnome's participation in the standardization process understandably makes people nervous.

For the love of god, why don't people have balls(women excluded)? I'm getting tired of people bowing down to pressure or being bought out. Doesn't anybody stand up for what they believe in anymore? I mean, way to go KDE. But, Gnome? I mean, as a community aren't we supposed to stand up for the FREE as in FREEDOM we claim that open source is? I mean, this isn't just the Gnome community, I'm talking about the community as a whole. We need to stop OOXML. It's a big bloated piece of crap, shilled out at the last moment simply because MS saw a threat. But this rant isn't even about OOXML alone. Just now Ogg was kicked out of the HTML5 spec due to pressure from Nokia and Apple. I mean, WTF! Ogg was a great choice, good quality, free as in beer, and free as in freedom. The best of both worlds.

We support ODF. It is the default file format for our biggest deployment, the OLPC laptops. As far as I can tell it is now lossless for the OLPC implementation of AbiWord. We will continue to work to improve ou support for ODF.

Will the GNOME Foundation's indifferent response to Richard Stallman's appeal drive him to throw his weight behind KDE?

With Linus preferring KDE, could Stallman's support put more weight behind KDE? I'm rather surprised that the GNOME Foundation's decision. They could at least have kept their mouths shut instead of praising OOXML, which severely damages their credibility in the GNU world.

I'm rather surprised that the GNOME Foundation's decision. They could at least have kept their mouths shut instead of praising OOXML, which severely damages their credibility in the GNU world.

Who is "they"? Who is "them"?

Has an official representative of the GNOME Foundation publicly stated that it is GNOME Foundation policy to praise OOXML? Has the GNOME Foundation, as a group, taken any kind of official position on OOXML (other than "we want the specs for it so we can interoperate with OOXML users")?

Miguel de Icaza, who is not the GNOME Foundation, did call it "a superb standard". The GNOME Foundation did not endorse his comments, but it did release this statment:

While Microsoft should be applauded for releasing information about the Office document formats, their manoeuvres around the standards process demonstrate that they are not pursuing standardisation as a platform for innovation for the entire industry. Indeed, Microsoft continues to behave in the abusive manner of an unreformed, convicted monopolist with no passion for true industry collaboration in the interests of users.

If you have some examples of the GNOME Foundation praising OOXML, be sure to post them here. But at the moment I do not believe your complaints are supported by the facts.

P.S. As for Richard Stallman, he won't be completely satisfied with any desktop environment until he can get one where the whole environment is GPLv3 and there is no proprietary software available. Both GNOME and KDE have proprietary software available.

It doesn't matter what the "facts" are with regard to his official position in GNOME. What matters is peoples' perceptions. And the real fact of the matter is that people associate Miguel with GNOME. The fact that he is the former President shows why their association is not unwarranted. You don't have to believe me; just look at all the other comments on this story that show the authors believe there's a clear connection between Miguel and GNOME, or that he actually leads it.If the Foundation wants to

I disagree with the GP as well on the Exchange connector. However,GNOME, on the other hand, is more than willing to bow to Microsoft.

Examples, please, and not tin-foil-hat examples.

This was detailed in the article summary. Miguel de Icaza has endorsed OOXML, calling it a superb standard or somesuch. Miguel and GNOME go hand-in-hand, or at least that's the popular view. GNOME has never done anything to counter that view, so we might as well accept it as true. Therefore, since Miguel is willing to bow to

I am reminded of Henry Kissinger's famous quote: "Even a paranoid has some real enemies."

I appreciate RMS and his views. He is a pragmatic alarmist, he is playing the chess game that is computers several moves ahead of most people. That's why so many take his statements with a grain of salt, they don't see he has been "right," consistently, for over two decades, often years before the first real signs begin to show.

GNU/Linux and F/OSS have enemies. It is an undeniable fact. There are people working against us. One need only hop over to groklaw and see the black hand of Microsoft (and greed of course) guiding that whole thing. So, maybe we are paranoid, but even paranoids have real enemies.

I am really starting to believe that GNOME is a trojan horse, or at least some aspects of it. I don't trust Miguel de Icaza, he's either incompetent of a shill and he's potentially dangerous.

I am really starting to believe that GNOME is a trojan horse, or at least some aspects of it.

Whatever the motives of individuals behind the Gnome project, it has contributed one of only 4 fully fledged (only 2 free), stable and heavy-weight desktop managers around. Not only that but it has contributed a toolkit of the highest quality and literally hundreds of excellent applications.

Let's face it - just as KDE didn't die when gnome was founded in reaction to linking to non-GPL code, so Gnome won't die if

I think this is the best analysis of RMS I've seen on Slashdot. RMS is fighting a principled struggle, it won't necessarily make him popular, but I thank him for doing so. I know when I met him and told him that I admired his work, he made sure to admonish me for not coding myself.

I think XFCE is about to eat GNOME's lunch. I just tried it again for the first time in several years, and wow has it matured. You can keep using the same GNOME applications and have nice looking GTK, but have an interface that's easy to use, feature rich, fast and it just works better.

I think he is naive; I honestly believe he thinks MSOOXML is a good thing, based on his experience with.Net and Mono, but the two are very different thing with completely different agendas. MS sees value in having.Net/Mono out there to further it's adoption. MSOOXML is tool for lock in, embrace, extend extinquish. Protect the Office monopoly.

1. KDE was good, but not free (Free? phree?) enough.2. Gnome was established because we couldn't accept that un-free KDE?3. KDE fixed its problems and Gnome became Microsoft's bitch4. ???5. Profit!!!

Note that the number of steps between 3 and 5 is somewhere between 1 and infinity. I suspect that the number is closer to infinity. While I'm aware that this is a mathematical impossibility, I stand behind my statement.

... what Miguel de Icaza's obsession with shoving Microsoft technologies in to Gnome?

.NET (Mono)

OOXML

???

Is it to try and attract Windows developers to the Linux platform? Is it to ease transition from Windows to Linux? Is it to make it easier for Microsoft to threaten the entire community with patent infringement threats..? What is it?

I will say yet again: I hope Miguel de Icaza takes responsibility when Microsoft's stranglehold over the open source software I like grows. Because he sure seems to be infatuated with the company and their products.

considering that GNOME was RMS's baby to start with. Which is something I hold against him. There are many factors which prevent Linux from being widely acceptable, but having GNOME vs KDE business belongs to the major one.

Once upon a time, KDE was lambasted for using the not-Free-enough Qt libraries. There was a project to replace Qt and create a truly free KDE; but in the end, Trolltech released Qt under the GPL. And not the mealy-mouthed LGPL, like the GNOME libraries, which allows use in Caged software; but the full-on, not-sharing-is-stealing GPL. So the leeches still had to pay to use Qt in a Caged application; but if you played fair and wrote Free software, you could use Qt with the blessing of the copyright holders. (This didn't please the Windows fans. Windows users, raised on a diet of "illegally copying the Software is my way of Sticking It to the Man, and if you don't pay me $49 for this crapplication to do something petty that Unix has had since forever that I built with my pirate copy of Visual Studio, I'll turn off saving and bring up nag screens every five minutes", bitched loudly that there was no GPL Qt for Windows -- but the only thing stopping them porting it was the fact that the average Windows user would rather drown in shit than make the effort to swim.)

Now, the "freedom" to write Caged applications is a thorny issue. But I see it like this, and I'm sure RMS does too: in a nation where the ownership of slaves is forbidden, citizens tend to be freer on average than in a nation where the ownership of slaves is permitted. So KDE are actively promoting freedom, by taking a stand against OOXML. Novell and GNOME and Mono are getting rather too cosy in bed with Microsoft for comfort. It's very hard not to think about Microsoft pulling some kind of bait-and-switch operation which would put OSS users in trouble. If this happens, I think it's actually more likely that the Governments of the world would just pass Enabling Acts to annul whatever IP Microsoft are trying to abuse; but that's still a waste of taxpayers' money that doesn't have to happen, and by the time it gets to that stage the damage (in terms of unopenable public and private records) will be severe.

Not everyone is as responsible a citizen as you. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you, and just because you don't understand the importance of having access to Source Code doesn't mean it isn't every bit as big a deal, in its own right, as slavery.

I'm getting pretty tired of this ongoing OOXML issue; the FUD surrounding it is astounding. The article on itwire hasn't helped anyone since it's pretty clueless, looking for buzzwords and then reaching bizarre conclusions. Let's get a few facts down here:

GNOME (and Novell) do not support the standardisation of OOXML. They are both members of the ODF alliance [odfalliance.org], both use it as the default file format, and if it was even remotely realistic to have a decent office product without OOXML support (where the Windows desktop is unfortunately in such an insane over-dominance currently), then they would of course be all for it.

The implementation of OOXML is all about interoperability. I don't see anyone (wrongly) trashing Samba as a project, and yet its existence and the effort to implement OOXML support is virtually identical in terms of free software.

You like software freedom and hate the software patent system? Great, so do I. Free implementations of proprietary solutions, though, are a good thing; not a single one of my friends are going to be using Linux if they can't submit their assignments to their lecturers. We need interoperability, to ease the transition for people coming from the proprietary world.

The KDE/Koffice developers issued a statement [kde.org] basically saying they didn't have the resources or the time to implement OOXML, and suddenly a lot of silly talk gets thrown at GNOME. If I volunteered to implement OOXML support in Koffice I doubt (i) that they would object, and for sure that (ii) any distribution would not include it.

Even if you dislike Jeff Waugh, it's pretty tough to find a rational basis for criticising him based on the podcast or his approach to the problem other than (i) not getting the GNOME statement [gnome.org] (again, which you really can't fault) out soon enough, or (ii) giving Roy the publicity he wants.

The itwire article plays Roy as some sort of victim in the podcast talk. That is ridiculous. Unfortunately -- and to the detriment of the FLOSS community -- Roy is an incredibly prolific, poisonous [google.nl] person willing to do or say anything that might cook up some self-publicity, and with an irrational hatred of Novell. And in fact on the contrary, Roy skipped around every question that was directly asked to him; instead opting to just give background on Microsoft's "evil" nature and talking about how bad OOXML is (both of which we palpably know).

Finally, even if you decide to ignore all the other above facts, please tell me why you're not also staging wide protests against OpenOffice.org or your distribution for including OOXML support, as well.

I don't see why anyone is defending OOXML.No one uses it, yet. It's not a pragmatic standard, and it's definitely not an "official" standard (as in ISO).

More likely than not, if I sent out DOCX files from my business, I would be asked to send either PDF or DOC.

Until OOXML is ubiquitous, which will not happen for several years, there is no reason to not push ODF instead, particularly because ODF's got quite a bit of momentum internationally. Especially if the ODF plugin for MS Office continues to work proper

The one big problem with Gnome is that it embodies exactly what ordinary folk would imagine when you asked them about the meaning of "computer nerd". The image is that of a clumsy, pimply boy living somewhere in a basement, desperately trying to be anti-establishment. In a way, it wants to be a techno-hippie. Now imagine that the nerd's world was suddenly turned upside down by his views becoming mainstream, at least to a certain degree. By now, it has become kind of common to think and say that Microsoft is the devil, that the whole proprietary software crap should be buried in an unmarked grave, etc.

That's exactly the situation Icaza and his cronies are finding themselves in. They wanted to be rebels, even saviors. One sign of that is the (rather fruitless) experiment that is Gnome. In an attempt to describe it, I arrived at the following:

Gnome is like the intersection of the Apple and Microsoft design teams without the resources or the skills.

Or in other words: Epic fail! You want proof? Until today, Gnome has consistently failed to even grow a usable file selection dialog. I rest my case.

Ironically, denouncing the rest of the "scene" has that way become the logical way to again be different. It's a purely religious reflex: if someone threatens your perceived dominance, it is declared evil. If you think about it, deep in its absolute retardedness, it's kinda cute on that level.

But the default desktop for SUSE Linux (owned by Novell) is KDE... So GNOME uses de Icaza who promotes Microsoft on Novell's payroll which ships KDE as the default desktop, but Microsoft has an agreement with Novell who has de Icaza on payroll and - Oh no, now I'm dizzy!

This [slashdot.org] should help. A quick bit of text from Miguel him self from the link on his endorsement of OOXML that the article refers to.

I made that comment on my blog because that reflects my personal opinion. You really need to obsess over something else.
And before someone brings up the Microsoft connection, you should know that Novell official policy is to actively endorse ODF and that Novell's position on OOXML is neutral.

So it looks like Novell works on implementing Microsoft stuff but does not officially think you should use it. Miguel thinks that MS does a good job every so often and Linux should work with MS standards.

I don't agree with the good job part but think about it. If MS switches over to OOXML and Linux can support it just as well as Windows who needs Windows? The same logic works with.NET. I am aware that this is easier said then done but it has been done before [wikipedia.org]

It's been my experience that does not support office formats well. Mostly for images and tables. I have had many experiences where I open up a.doc only to find that the images are on top of each other. With any luck a formal spec, as convoluted and stupid as it is, would help fix this problem. I commonly recommend that people try using Open Office before they run out a buy MS Office. Half of them end up having so many problems with.docs that they have to get MS Office anyway. I am not saying that it's a g

I know it's a minor point but it then changes who you blame for the issue. Currently it's Open Office that does not work right. You can't argue it. The spec is 'work like MS office' and it does not. But OOXML has a spec. So when the MS software deviates the MS software will be provably wrong. Like with the acid 2 test. When Firefox 3 comes out IE will be the only browser that does not correctly support HTML. And when they can't pass the OOXML acid 2 test equivalent there will be extra egg on there face for

Except that you believe in Easter Bunny.OOXML has a spec, like, behave something that we don't have the specs for and won't get the details. Recursion to the unknown. Read up a bit on it and you'll find out. [Yes, you as well, you the moderator who thinks this as 'insightful']'Provably' means that you have the specs, and 'provably' means that MS implements the specs. Neither will be the case, since you don't have them, and they will not be implemented (at least not all 6000+b pages), you're screwed. Egg in

You guys all know that Miguel has been distancing himself from GNOME for years now? He even had a signature at one point on his Slashdot account (since removed) asking people not to complain to him about perceived flaws in GNOME's UI.

Miguel is a Mono developer. Mono is linked to GNOME in the sense that some GNOME tools use it, but it's about as accurate to paint him as a GNOME developer as it would be to paint GCC developers the same way.

Which isn't all too high, look at their recent filings and layoffs.Sure he wants to get a generous offer from them (MS), and he'll bent any direction of the windrose for it.Let him move along. Even encourage him to move along. Gnumeric was the last great thing he did. Evolution was already corrupted, because the contributors to the Exchange plugin were asked to fork out for using it.The earlier he arrives in Redmond, the better for the community.

de Icaza is very entrenched in MS derived technologies: Mono, SilverLight, etc. It is perfectly understandable to want the MS technologies to be thoroughly explained and implementable. Also there are some back history to OOXML that contains file format data that could be useful for many of the projects. For the sake of interop it is necessary to glean the standards as written. I don't think he is giving too much praise to the OOXML format, whether it is better or not is not important here.

For the sake of interop it is necessary to glean the standards as written.

I think it's more vital for the sake of interop to use only open standards - Microsoft will just continue to change and break theirs to the detriment of interoperability. Writing to their standards is a short sighted act of desperation.

The two most popular distros in use today are Fedora and Ubuntu(Debian) and both use GNOME by default. Yes, there are a lot of other distros that ship with KDE default, but their popularity doesn't match what Fedora and Ubuntu have been able to carve out in the Linux Desktop market. Most people go with the default when installing those distros too, so GNOME has a high probability of being the most used Linux Desktop.

Funny, when I bought my mother-in-law a $300 Wal-Mart PC, it came pre-loaded with Linspire, a KDE distro.

Funny, I don't think he ever claimed otherwise.

Are you going to posit that Linspire even comes close to matching the installed base of Ubuntu or Fedora? The bottom line is those Wal-mart PC's are NOT a significant source of existing Linux installs. Them coming with something other then GNOME is just not an issue. It's like jumping on someone for saying most cars are powered by gasoline by saying "Funny, I just bought an electric car from Bob's Who-ja-whatzit Electric Autos. And from YARC (Yet Another R

Most people go with the default when installing those distros too, so GNOME has a high probability of being the most used Linux Desktop.

Alas, that doesn't actually seem to be the case, and we've had a few desktop surveys over the past few years that have gone totally against this grain - despite some peoples' best efforts;-). Additionally, the fact that people are still talking about KDE and KDE 4 still seems to be able to generate excitement for some reason means that something isn't right..

*shrug*I think many, if not most, openSuSE users use KDE. SuSE was a KDE distribution for a long time, and most of the SuSE GUI tools are still KDE-centric.

Also, the official position [opensuse.org] of the openSuSE Community is that there is no "default" desktop environment:

What is the default desktop of openSUSE - GNOME or KDE?openSUSE supports a number of popular desktop environments, including GNOME and KDE. During installation, the user is asked to choose between GNOME and KDE but no default is given. Both desktop env

"What is the default desktop of openSUSE - GNOME or KDE?openSUSE supports a number of popular desktop environments, including GNOME and KDE. During installation, the user is asked to choose between GNOME and KDE but no default is given. Both desktop environments are mature and feature-rich, which one a user chooses is a question of personal taste."

IMHO, they use GNOME by default in the vain hope that commercial software developers will have easier time releasing closed-source binaries for their distros (which is quite disgusting, of course). You need to buy a QT commercial license to do that stuff (at least the payments are used to support QT development). Anyway - few people _do_ that stuff. And I think that's basically the only reason GNOME is by default.As for "all" popular distros, the word "commercial" is missing. Or at least "commerce-oriented"

By recent popular you pretty much mean Ubuntu, right? I think Gnome is chosen mostly because there's fairly little standardization compared to KDE and so easier to differentiate and add value. I've tried KDE on Debian, Kunbuntu and SUSE and KDE is pretty much all the same. KDE releases become vastly more important than distro releases. While everyone talks of KDE being more like Windows, in terms of consistancy KDE with their k* apps are more like OSX with their i* apps while Gnome is the windowsish one. Ru

Since all recent popular Linux distributions uses Gnome by default, does this really matter anymore?

The relevant question(s) here is: "Since a handful of supposedly enterprise desktop distributions have defaulted to Gnome for a while, has this actually made any difference whatsoever to anyone using free desktops at all? If this is the case, why does anyone even talk about KDE anymore?"

However, as with all open source projects, alternatives are available - Kubuntu, for example, or simply 'apt-get install kde'.

For those interested, the way to get proper KDE support on a standard Ubuntu install is "sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop". This will include not only KDE, but also the standard Kubuntu applications and artwork.

Gosh. You guys are a bunch of angry morons. Life isn't about taking your ball and going home. It's about doing deals to gently move the status quo over to your side. Taking your ball and going home isn't going to actually SOLVE anything.

As far as I can see, the ODF ball is being given to everyone, including Microsoft. Except Microsoft doesn't want to play, which is normal.

They want everyone to adopt to using their ooxml ball, but they keep giving it as a flat ball to everyone and only they can pump it up. Not sure what Microsoft wants, but they're not exactly playing with anyone.

It is a sucky standard. Who cares? Not me. I'd sure rather it work than everybody cry about it.

I'd rather people focus the energy on stuff that makes our software stronger and more appealing, rather than trying to implement ill-defined 'open' specs. Mono on linux, for example, is a travesty to me.

Every once in a while, however, you meet a predator/bully who cannot be challenged via _any_ means except a war to the death. You do not beat diseases by negotiating with bacteria. You do not eliminate rats by trying to train them away from dumpsters. You cannot negotiate with an irrational tyrant expect positive results.

We've already been through the standards process for a document format. There's an ISO standard for documents: ODF. Anything th

This is exactly the sort of thing the GNU/Linux, F/OSS people need to be careful of. These are serious matters, and this joker wants to ad-hominem RMS in an attempt to minimize the impact of his statements. Note, no refutation of fact, merely insults, childish ones at that.

Yea, maybe RMS's appearance is, lacking a better phrase, unorthodox, but his words and actions are the issues here. Stop being a child and focus on the subject, or is it your job to distract from the subject?

Isn't that statement essentially an admission that KDE purposely linked GPL licensed code to the older, proprietary Qt code (thus violating copyright law)? In that case, yes, the original copyright holder can revoke their privileges under GPL 2. This is one of the things that was changed in GPL 3.

yes, KDE purposefully linked GPL licensed code to QPLv1 code. however, it was THEIR code which means that they were fully within their rights to do so. anyone building apps on top of those libs implicitly agreed as well.

linking someone else's code would be an issue, and in the 2 cases where that happened it was rectified as soon as it was brought up; it's also useful to note that those 2 cases were small code fragments, not significant bodies of work, and as such certainly not evidence of a willfull plot or some such thing. they were oversights, and corrected in a timely manner without fuss.

and this was what, getting to be 10 years ago now? today we have nice clean GPL'd (or "better") code on every platform we support. let's find some new issues to grind over. =)

the link in the comment above explains exactly where the code was: a small bit of code in kmidi and an even smaller chunk (a few lines) of rather inconsequential code in kghostview. all of it was replaced as soon as it was noticed, none of it was intentional/malicious, and it certainly wasn't a substantial part of even a single application.i'm guessing it's kghostview that you were thinking of when you wrote, "there was a PDF viewer or something similar that used third party GPL'd code". which, in light of

Yeah, KGhostview was probably it. The amount of code certainly wasn't "inconsequential", the KDE code was little more than a front end to the (GPL'd) application. RMS's comment therefore was correct. His comments were taken offensively, but shouldn't be - RMS was essentially saying "Technically, the KDE people did violate the GPL and lost their rights to redistribute some code as a result, so the legal procedure of "forgiveness" needs to be done." But it didn't come out that way as the forgiveness thing ma

given that KOffice uses ODF natively, providing good evidence that ODF is not simply a one-project/company proprietary format being dressed up as a standard, yes it is important. it's a very compelling argument in favour of ODF that has been used quite a bit in the push towards ODF standardization; it's not uncommon to see ODF stalls at tech events showing OpenOffice one one computer and KOffice on another displaying the same document. more examples of ODF usage are appearing every day now, of course =)

and yes, a good number of people do use KOffice. certainly not as many people as use OpenOffice, but to the users of KOffice knowing that they are working with apps that use an interoperable format is indeed pretty important to them.